“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 1,571) …

The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2022 - Code a01465 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an application was submitted under section 191 (existing) for works that were not begun (or were not substantially complete), and the Inspector concluded that the application should be treated as an application under section 192 (proposed).
    [Note: The works were not begun by the time the application was submitted].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular piece of land is not within the “curtilage” of the property.
    [Note: The land is approx 99m-103m from the main house].
  • Furthermore, the above was concluded even though it was accepted that the piece of land is within the applicant’s ownership / unit of occupation / planning unit / etc.
    [Quote: “There is a material difference in the character of the land where it is proposed to site the cabin compared to the well defined and terraced domestic garden land nearer the dwellinghouse. The cut terraces physically and visually enclose the rear garden area on its eastern side and they are used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. In contrast the site of the proposed cabin is characterised by a woodland setting. The dwellinghouse is not visible from this parcel of land due to the distance and sloping typography. I recognise that the Appellant may have used the land for recreational use but the evidence suggests this use has been limited and for a period of no more than 2 years. The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the function of the land has changed from woodland to recreation. Whilst I recognise that the dwellinghouse and parcel of land on which the cabin would sit is within the same ownership this is not a determining factor. Taking all of the evidence into account the parcel of land on which it is proposed to erect a cabin does not as a matter of fact and degree have the kind of intimate association with the dwellinghouse that is required for it to be reasonably interpreted as within its curtilage.”].

August 2022 - Code a01464 (appeal dismissed):

  • Where a proposed extension (under Class A) would be attached to an existing extension, then the phrase “[the] total enlargement” applies to the combined structure. [Note: In other words, the combined structure should be assessed against those limitations and conditions of Class A that apply to “[the] total enlargement”].
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].
  • Furthermore, the above conclusion still applies even if the existing extension was granted planning permission by the Council (i.e. rather than erected under government permitted development rights).
    [Note: Relates to A.1(ja) (with respect to A.1(j)) of the GPDO 2015].

August 2022 - Code a01463 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

August 2022 - Code a01462 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

August 2022 - Code a01461:

  • [Note: To view this information, please log onto the website with a current membership.]

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document for no extra cost.
  • Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.